First Instance was free from prejudicial error and "allquestions raised by the assignments of error and allquestions that might have been raised are to beregarded as finally adjudicated against theappellant". So also, the judgment affirmed "must beregarded as free from all error".
We reached thispolicy construction because nothing in the decisionof the Court of Appeals on this point would suggestthat its findings of fact are in any way at war withthose of the trial court. Nor was said affirmance bythe Court of Appeals upon a ground or groundsdifferent from those which were made the basis of the conclusions of the trial court.
If, as petitioner underscores, a first-class-ticket holder is not entitled to a first class seat,notwithstanding the fact that seat availability inspecific flights is therein confirmed, then an airpassenger is placed in the hollow of the hands of anairline. What security then can a passenger have? Itwill always be an easy matter for an airline aided byits employees, to strike out the very stipulations inthe ticket, and say that there was a verbalagreement to the contrary. What if the passengerhad a schedule to fulfill? We have long learned that,as a rule, a written document speaks a uniformlanguage; that spoken word could be notoriouslyunreliable. If only to achieve stability in the relationsbetween passenger and air carrier, adherence to theticket so issued is desirable. Such is the case here. The lower courts refused to believe the oralevidence intended to defeat the covenants in theticket.The foregoing are the considerations whichpoint to the conclusion that there are facts uponwhich the Court of Appeals predicated the findingthat respondent Carrascoso had a first class ticketand was entitled to a first class seat at Bangkok,which is a stopover in the Saigon to Beirut leg of theflight.
We perceive no "welter of distortions by theCourt of Appeals of petitioner's statement of itsposition", as charged by petitioner.
Nor do wesubscribe to petitioner's accusation that respondentCarrascoso "surreptitiously took a first class seat toprovoke an issue".
And this because, as petitionerstates, Carrascoso went to see the Manager at hisoffice in Bangkok "to confirm my seat and becausefrom Saigon I was told again to see the Manager".
Why, then, was he allowed to take a first class seatin the plane at Bangkok, if he had no seat? Or, if another had a better right to the seat?4. Petitioner assails respondent court's awardof moral damages. Petitioner's trenchant claim isthat Carrascoso's action is planted upon breach of contract; that to authorize an award for moraldamages there must be an averment of fraud or badfaith;
and that the decision of the Court of Appealsfails to make a finding of bad faith. The pivotalallegations in the complaint bearing on this issueare:3. That ... plaintiff entered into a
of air carriage with the Philippine Air Lines for avaluable consideration, the latter acting asgeneral agents for and in behalf of thedefendant, under which said contract,plaintiff was entitled to, as defendant agreedto furnish plaintiff, First Class passage ondefendant's plane during the entire durationof plaintiff's tour of Europe with Hongkong asstarting point up to and until plaintiff's returntrip to Manila, ... .4. That, during the first two legs of the tripfrom Hongkong to Saigon and from Saigon toBangkok, defendant furnished to the plaintiff First Class accommodation but only afterprotestations, arguments and/or insistencewere made by the plaintiff with defendant'semployees.5. That finally, defendant
failed to provide
First Class passage, but instead furnishedplaintiff only
Class accommodationsfrom Bangkok to Teheran and/or Casablanca,... the plaintiff has been
bydefendant's employees to leave the FirstClass accommodation berths at Bangkok
after he was already seated
.6. That consequently, the plaintiff, desiringno repetition of the inconvenience andembarrassments brought by defendant'sbreach of contract was forced to take a PanAmerican World Airways plane on his returntrip from Madrid to Manila.
x x x x x x x x x2. That likewise, as a result of defendant'sfailure to furnish First Class accommodationsaforesaid, plaintiff suffered inconveniences,embarrassments, and humiliations, thereby causingplaintiff mental anguish, serious anxiety, woundedfeelings, social humiliation, and the like injury,resulting in moral damages in the amount of P30,000.00.
x x x x x x x x xThe foregoing, in our opinion, substantiallyaver:
, That there was a contract to furnishplaintiff a first class passage covering, amongstothers, the Bangkok-Teheran leg;
, That saidcontract was breached when petitioner failed tofurnish first class transportation at Bangkok; and
that there was bad faith when petitioner'semployee compelled Carrascoso to leave his firstclass accommodation berth
"after he was already,seated"
and to take a seat in the tourist class, byreason of which he suffered inconvenience,embarrassments and humiliations, thereby causinghim mental anguish, serious anxiety, woundedfeelings and social humiliation, resulting in moraldamages. It is true that there is no specific mentionof the term
in the complaint. But, the